Digital controls have more reliability and they are easier to use. What do I mean.

If those trims were digital they would had a “video editing knob feel” or a “mouse wheel feel”. remember how a mouse wheel with good detents for increments feel? Is perfect for “elevator trim if you think about it.
You have good feedback on how much trim you put and a quick way to reset the trim by pressing the wheel. Likewise a horizontal “editing knob”, You twist it right or left and when you need to reset you press on it.

Another thing, the digital trim wheel feel like axis but they are buttons! This is good in sims (like Black Shark) where you can’t have trim analog axis… cause the aircraft doesn’t have one in real life… so you can map just buttons… well… a digital axis would had come in handy isn’t it?

So to review…

Digital has this advantages over analogue:
-reliability
-better feedback while in use
-better control of center point
-better compatibility with games and sims
-more versatility as they are in fact buttons

2.

The current analogue trim axis on this logitech has no central point feel what so ever!!!

Sure it gives the sensation of realistic feel as you are interested in centering the plane and not the control… but, in real life simulations ( ) things go wrong and you can’t tell exactly what is wrong… so you quickly need to reset the trims to remove them out of the problem… with this unit… you can’t do it… you waste precious time in a spin by trying desperately too reset the trims.

If Logitech would improve this unit in near future with this observations I made (I can be wrong though but, I would like some arguments) it would be great!

Thanks for your comments about the analog trims on Flight System G940. We selected analog trims because we believe they are an advantage over digital inputs in this application. The majority of existing flight simulations support assignment of trims to analog axes. Using an analog axis is very similar to the trim wheels and knobs present in many small and large aircraft, The range of adjustment is wider as well.

Logitech’s modern analog variable resistors are also very reliable. Worn and spiky trims are unlikely to occur in this usage, In addition, our analog axes can be programmed to work as digital controls, using the axis or zone assignment features in Logitech Gaming Software.

We also made the decision to use a center mark on the trims and rotaries, instead of a detent. We found that a detent reduced adjustability around the critical center of the control. The marks are clearly visible and easy to set back to center.

A digital rotary control is not normally found in aircraft. For users who want to use digital input to simulate electric trims, there are numerous hats and buttons to assign or program. DCS: Black Shark is a good example of a modern helicopter simulation, where assigning trim to a hat switch would be more realistic and preferred.

Digital rotary inputs are very cool, and may end up as additions to future controllers. After all, Logitech produces more of them than almost anyone (in our mice!).

I just bought this controller and I am trying to use it with Janes F15. The problem is that the hat on the joystick is seen as the throttle and it cannot be unassigned or turned off.

Background

Since Janes F15 can only use 1 joystick I made the default joystick, well the joystick.
To use the throttle the keyboard keys are – and = for less and more throttle respectively.
So I assigned the keys to the throttle and started the game. The throttle did not work. So I just used the keyboard to check to see are those the correct keys. They are but it still did not work. What I discovered it that the joystick HAT is seen by the game as the throttle and was overriding the keyboard input and no way to shut it off in the game setup.

So I went to use the Logitech software to remove that axis from the joystick. I found out I cannot do it.

The software MUST have a way to assign or UNASSIGN and axis in order to use it with old games. I call the POV minibutton an axis because it shows up as the slider 1 and 2 in the directx joystick output so it actually has 2 axis.

CH Control Manager is the absolute best at this. New or old games need this functionality and it should not be overlooked. Functionality is why so many CH users are zealots. CH is not the best looking or the most sexy but they simply WORK from windows 95 to Windows 7.

From what I see Logitech seems to be most of the way in replicating the functionality of CH Control Manager functionality. CH makes 3 joysticks look like one using a virtual joystick. Logitech makes one joystick look like 3 using virtual joysticks from what I can tell. If you plug in the joystick before installing the drivers it shows up as 1 joystick making it usable in old games. The Logitech software makes it look like 3 devices.

The problem is that the axis are non-standard and cannot be reassigned making the controller useful for the older games. Example. The rudder is Trim 3 button and the Throttle is the joystick hat. That is either with the all drivers and software installed or not and there seems to be no way to change that. With CH Control Manager I could create the virtual joystick with 8,6 or 4 axis and assign the axes and HATs

For example Jetfighter 3 cannot use the throttle in the game unless the POV hat is NOT used. In CH Manager I had to assign the throttle to axis 1, Z axes and not add the POV hat to the joystick at all. One can never know exactly what situation they will run into and having capable software is what makes CH users such zealots. Of course what CH is doing is not magic or can only be done by CH. If you can add this functionality to this controller or controllers you will be unstoppable. There will be no need for that “other joystick I need to keep for this game and this one for that game…”

I guess in summary what this controller needs to make it an absolute winners is:

1. The ability to make the joystick seen as 1 device. (Which seems to already be there)
2. The ability to create that device with 8,6 or 4 axis that the user can map.

Its like having a Ferrari body and a 4 cylinder engine.
I need a Chevette body and a 500HP engine.
Most prefer a Ferrari body and a Ferrari engine.

BTW I tried using ppjoy and ppjoyjoy (google them, they remap joystick axis) to create the virtual joystick I need. But the joystick or game freezes for a moment every now and then or is completely erratic or unresponsive.

This would have solved that problem if not for those issues. Maybe Logitech can mod or come up with there own version of ppjoy and ppjoyjoy.

We designed the G940 to be compatible with the greatest number of games, and sometimes had to make decisions that would exclude some functions to give good results in others. As a result, some older games like Jane’s F-15, which was published in 1998, aren’t supported. The trade-off is that most games published in the last five years support multiple devices, so that new features like trims and toe brakes can be directly supported.

We do continue to improve the product and its software, so we’ll look at ways we might be able to support older sims as well.

Its not really about the age of the game but the flexibility. You never know what circumstances may come about even in future games.

That is why good software is always needed. The fact is is that controllers are still the same basically over the last 20 years though what they are made of has changed. They just provide values to the operating system. Its the SOFTWARE that makes them functional now and in the future.

This is one thing that CH excels in. With their software I can use my controllers on ALL my games new and old. The same could be said from Logitech if they develop the same type of software they can use for years to come.

The “thought” of some is that if you dont give people a choice the will have to buy new stuff. The fact is people buy because what they want, in this arena, not what they need. I dont think anybody is only buying the G940 because they NEED a new joystick. But many more people return things becuase it DOES NOT give them what they want.

I understand there are 2 (at least) sides going on in a for profit business.

I understand your arguments and I agree the current setup of trimmers could be fitting more people or would make sense for the resons you had presented, I would still prefer digital over analog cause the named center zone reduced adjustability (which is a true observable fact in other HOTAS, I own a Cougar and a X52pro) wouldn’t exist in the first place in them as the first click is (feels) the same as the 27th or last for that matter.

As a compromise to this… dilema, I think doubled trimmers would be best. Analog on the stick base and digital rotaries on the throttle base would please anyone. Of course, economic reasons can dictate the current choice of Logitech.

I plan to buy one of those G940s later this year as I find dual throttle and FFB appealing… And maybe i will build on little box with digital trimmers out of a gamepad logic board and some digital rotaries to fit my needs.

I just stumbled across this system in the local shop. I’m looking for something to replace my old Logitech Freedom joystick. Nothing wrong with it, used it for years, and it’s still going strong, but I a system that will get rid of the keyboard/mouse when I use FSX.
I know I can program just about anything with this new system, but it is possible to use it to tune radios, navs, height and heading values for the autoflight system, etc, as well?
I always fly virtual cockpit, and I don’t like to use the mouse for this.

If this is possible in an easy way, you’ll have a new customer for your G 940.

The Flight System G940 is fully programmable, so you can program buttons or hat switches to perform any commands available in Flight Simulator. Various radios are selected by a key, and then tuned up or down with the + and – keys, so these could easily be programmed into Profiler, eliminating the need to use the mouse or keyboard.

I’ve recently bought the G940 and I’ve been very impressed with I’ve seen so far.

Only one or two problems. I don’t know if I understand it correctly, but when I use the profiler, I have the default key layout setup for DCS: Black Shark, Flight Simulator X and Lock-On Flaming Cliffs.

However, when I enter the game, there seems to be numerous conflicts in controller inputs and the key assignments are not the same as set up in the profiler.

Profiler only assigns commands to the buttons on G940. The axes need to be assigned directly within the games themselves. We included a file called

Flight System G940 – Game setup guide.pdf

It is located in C:\Program Files\Logitech\Gaming Software\ folder and it has step by step instructions for most popular sims. DCS: Black Shark was released after the guide was completed, so specific instructions are not included, but the basic steps are the same.

The basic steps are:

1) Go to the settings or options area of your simulation
2) Assign the controller axes to the controls of the simulator
3) Clear any incorrect or duplicate assignments

I just got my g940, looks perfect. I’ve FSX on my computer, I adjusted all the axes like you wrote in the guide, but the profiler doesn’t have profile for FSX. I’ve CMR Dirt on my PC too, that the software found and gave me some profile, but not for fsx. How can I have the basic config for the buttons?

Policies + Terms

Comment Policy

We're glad you're here. We want to hear from you and encourage comments, critiques, questions and suggestions. Please understand that we reserve the right to edit or delete comments for any reason we deem appropriate. This is a moderated blog and comments and postings will be reviewed for relevance and topicality. We will review the queue several times daily, so please don’t resubmit if your comment doesn’t appear immediately. At this time, we are only able to post and respond to comments written in English.